11. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-78, regarding a Police Substation in Central Square.
Placed on File

To: City Manager, Louis A. DePasquale
From: Police Commissioner, Branville G. Bard, Jr.
Date: Oct 11, 2017
Ref.: Council Order #17-78; Ref: Central Square

In reference to Council Order, #17-78 pertaining to Central Square, Police Commissioner Bard is studying the efficacy of implementing a police sub-station in the Square. It is anticipated that the study will be brief. The Commissioner is juxtaposing the efficacy of using a mobile sub-station vs. a portable but fixed substation (“guard shack” such as the type used by several area police departments, Boston, Lowell, etc.) vs. a fixed location (vacant storefront).

In the interim, the Department has increased its presence in Central Square using a variety of methods resulting in praise from local businesses and residents. In addition to having officers normally assigned to the area conduct “Park and Walks”, the Department has included Central Square in its High-Visibility Patrol (HVP) deployment strategy. Essentially, HVP floods an area with a contingent of officers utilizing cruisers, bicycles and walking foot-beats; the goal is to increase the number of positive interactions with citizens, not increased enforcement activities. Since early September 2017, members of the CPD have spent more than six-hundred additional hours in Central Square / Carl Barron Plaza.

Over the past month, CPD has held two Cambridgeport and Riverside Neighborhood Community Meetings. At both meetings residences spoke loud and clear that they needed and wanted additional police presence in Central Square. The department recognizes how important a sub-station is to the Cambridgeport and Riverside Neighborhoods and to the safety of the City, along with its potential to increase the effectiveness and efficiency in responding to calls. Commissioner Bard is committed to exploring all options and the range of alternative approaches available. The Commissioner anticipates presenting options to the City Manager after 60 but no later than 90 days from submission of this response.

CPD will continue to devote increased resources in an effort to bolster its presence and increase community-policing efforts in Central Square.

Respectfully,
Branville, G. Bard, Jr., Police Commissioner

18. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-80, regarding a report on the Eastern Cambridge Kendall Square Open Space Planning Study.
Placed on File

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Re: Policy Order O-12 dated 9/11/17 regarding the status of new Eastern Cambridge parks
Date: Oct 10, 2017

The Eastern Cambridge/Kendall Square Open Space (ECKOS) Study and Connect Kendall Square Open Space Competition, completed in 2015, created an open space framework to guide the planning and design of open spaces in Kendall Square and the broader eastern Cambridge area. This work also provided a vision to guide the character and role of new public spaces to integrate them into the existing network of open spaces in the area.

Following the completion of the ECKOS Study, the City began working with the community and landscape architects Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates (MVVA) and Stoss on the design of four public spaces, totaling nearly 5 acres.

• Rogers Street Park: Rogers Street between Second and Third Streets
• Binney Street Park: Galileo Way between Broadway and Binney Street
• Triangle Park: Triangle parcel at Land Boulevard and First Street
• Point Park: Main Street and Broadway

Point Park is largely owned by Boston Properties and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA), who made initial improvements to the space in 2016. The City received the remaining three parcels through rezoning agreements with Alexandria Real Estate and CRA/Boston Properties and these are currently in design development. Most recently, open houses to gather public input were held in spring (Rogers Street Park) and fall (Binney Street Park and Triangle Park) 2017.

Rogers Street Park is being designed by MVVA as a neighborhood park to serve the needs of residents of all ages and a range of interests. It is anticipated to include play areas for children of varying ages, picnic areas, a fenced off-leash dog area, and an open field area for flexible recreational uses, similar to those currently occurring on the site. We aim to hold a public meeting or open house later this fall to get further public input on the design. Construction at Rogers Street Park is anticipated to begin in late summer/fall 2018.

Binney Street Park, being designed by Stoss, will include a segment of the planned Grand Junction Greenway, a shared use pathway, as well as plaza seating and a fenced off-leash dog area. Following feedback from the community during the design process, a mix of amenities were incorporated into the design to connect and bring users from different neighborhoods together in the park space. The project is expected to go out to public bid this winter, with construction anticipated to begin in spring 2018.

Triangle Park, being designed by Stoss, will include a hardscape plaza, as well as an elevated walkway with a view toward the Charles River to enhance the sense of connectivity to the river, an opportunity identified through the process for this site. The Triangle Park project is also expected to go out to public bid this winter, with construction anticipated to begin in spring 2018.

Galaxy Park/Point Park was recently renovated following the reconstruction of Main Street in Kendall Square. The project was led by a landscape architect selected by the CRA and Boston Properties. The City’s design consultant, Stoss, provided input into the renovation and is conducting further conceptual design study of the longer-term options for this centrally-located space. Guided by principles identified through the Connect Kendall Square process, this work focuses on specific portions of the space; a timeline for implementation of those recommendations has not yet been identified.

21. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the City Council’s draft Guiding Principles and Goals developed with the assistance of Big Sky Blue Consulting over the course of three public goal setting meetings held during this term.
Guiding Principles And Goals Adopted Provisionally (Order #21) - 8-0-1 (Cheung ABSENT)

Oct 16, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Below are the City Council’s draft Guiding Principles and Goals that you developed with the assistance of Big Sky Blue Consulting over the course of three public goal setting meetings held during this term.

Guiding Principles

• Accessible: We make it safe and easy for people to get where they need to go, for work and play.
• Deliberate. We plan for the future so that we’re ready for its opportunities and challenges.
• Diverse: We make room for a mix of people to feel welcome and at home here.
• Efficient: We get the work of government done smoothly, in a transparent, collaborative, and fiscally responsible manner.
• Equitable: We treat each other fairly and without bias; we respond to the humanity we recognize in each other.
• Innovative: We support the people and institutions that are inventing new ways to make life better.
• Navigable: We make it easy for people to find their way to the city services they need, so all our residents can figure out how to “make the system work” for them.
• Neighborly: We strive to connect to the people around us; we pitch in to help each other out.
• Resilient: We take careful steps now to leave a better world for the generations to come.
• Rooted: We preserve the feel of a deep history that runs under our city.

City Council Goals

Goal 1: Increase access to affordable housing for all income groups.

Goal 2: Ensure that Cambridge offers economic and educational opportunity to all.

Goal 3: Deepen our commitment to sustainable use of energy and strengthen our capacity for resilience.

Goal 4: Expand and deepen community engagement.

Goal 5: Develop more proactive, inclusive, and transparent city planning process.

Goal 6: Make it easy to move safely through the City, especially by sustainable modes of transportation.

Goal 7: Increase opportunities for all residents to enjoy the City’s open spaces.

Goal 8: Ensure that Cambridge remains an Innovation Hub that integrates businesses of all sizes into a thriving ecosystem.

Goal 9: Improve Council’s capacity to collaborate more effectively, make better decisions, and increase its accountability to the public.

Goal 10: Ensure City’s budget allocates resources responsibly and responsively.

Goal 11: Ensure Public Safety efforts reflect current and emerging challenges and opportunities in a way that incorporates Cambridge’s core values.

Goal 12: Eliminate Bias within the City workplace and wider community.

During the goal setting sessions, the City Council also identified draft objectives for each goal.

Currently, City Staff is working to create actions and performance measures for each of the 12 goals and the 53 associated objectives. In doing this we are working to integrate existing plans and commitments in to the action plans. Examples include: Envision Cambridge, Mayor’s Diversity and Inclusion Initiative, Urban Forestry Master Plan, Solid Waste Master Plan, Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan, Net Zero Action Plan, Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience Plan, the Citizen Survey, Early Childhood Recommendations and others. I am hoping to transmit draft action plans to the Council in mid-November for consideration. This process will likely continue in 2018.

To keep the process moving forward and to ensure staff can begin the process of incorporating the Council’s goals into the budget process that begins in December, I am asking the City Council to adopt the draft Guiding Principles and Goals.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

O-7     Oct 16, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: Speeding cut-through traffic is one of the most frequent concerns expressed by residents city-wide to the City Council; and
WHEREAS: Traffic calming elements can be effective on certain streets, but features like curb extensions and raised crosswalks can be costly and time-consuming to install, and often residents feel that they do not solve the speeding problem; and
WHEREAS: “Neighborways” are becoming increasingly popular tools to slow traffic on residential streets without making substantial infrastructure changes to the street or reducing parking; and
WHEREAS: Neighborways beautify the public way with public art, identifying the street as one where neighbors prioritize safety and community over speed; and
WHEREAS: Neighborways have proven popular and effective in Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; and in Somerville; and
WHEREAS: These low-cost solutions bring neighbors together to brainstorm and collaborate in making community art to take "ownership" and pride in the public way; and
WHEREAS: Neighborways are a visual cue to motorists to slow down and watch for children, the elderly and other vulnerable users, furthering the City's commitments to Vision Zero and Complete Streets; and
WHEREAS: Neighborways bring communities together to improve their street, combining art, community relations, and safety to enhance Cambridge; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Community Development Department, the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, the Department of Public Works, and the Arts Council to 1) examine and report back to the City Council on the feasibility of implementing neighborways on certain streets in Cambridge, 2) propose two streets to pilot as neighborways, and 3) create a process by which a group of residents can request that their street be considered as future neighborways.

O-8     Oct 16, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: On May 11, 2009 the City Council unanimously recognized that there is a climate emergency and requested the City Manager “to direct the appropriate city departments to increase the City's responses to a scale proportionate to the emergency”; and
WHEREAS: In 2015 the City’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, the result of a rigorous scientific study, found that Cambridge is more vulnerable to increasing heat and flooding than to sea-level rise and coastal storm surges, heat waves and poor indoor air quality will become increasingly challenging public health threats, and heat stress on human health will become much more severe; and
WHEREAS: The City’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment found also that vulnerability is not evenly distributed among the neighborhoods or households, and that people who are more isolated due to infirmity, age, language, or income level are significantly more vulnerable; and
WHEREAS: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains information on techniques to mitigate the urban heat island on which it states that trees and vegetation lower surface and air temperatures by providing shade and through evapotranspiration and they are most useful for mitigation when placed at strategic locations around buildings or to shade pavement; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge Community Development Department has documented the locations of heat islands in Cambridge and the mitigating effects of our current tree canopy and the results of this study were reported in a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency webcast, “Assessing Your Heat Island: Considerations and Approaches”; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is seeking a team of consultants to develop a comprehensive Urban Forest Master Plan for a “thriving expanded tree canopy protected by appropriate ordinances, zoning and policies, and cared for by city and state government agencies, institutions, businesses, residents, and engaged volunteers”; and
WHEREAS: The contract for development of the Urban Forest Master Plan is expected to last a year or longer; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consider conservation of Cambridge’s tree canopy as necessary for maintaining public health and safety effective immediately; and be it further
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with City staff in relevant departments to propose immediate and forward-looking measures to improve and prioritize conservation of Cambridge’s tree canopy in the interim before the Urban Forest Master Plan is in place; and be it further
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council regarding these requests within 60 days.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Sept 26, 2017 at 3:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to follow up on Policy Order #2 of June 20, 2016 to discuss the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance and possible ways to improve this ordinance to protect the tree canopy while protecting individual property rights.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner, Public Works; John Nardone, Deputy Commissioner, Public Works; David Lefcourt, City Arborist; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Florrie Westcoat, Co-Chair, Public Planting Committee; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Martha Maury, 52 Garden Street; Rhonda Roselli, 17 Myrtle Avenue; Laura Nash, 11 Buckingham Street; John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street; and Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green St.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. An agenda of the hearing was distributed (ATTACHMENT A) This process began with an order that was adopted on June 20, 2016 (ATTACHMENT B). In the time since, the committee has heard concerns from residents about the tree canopy, especially due to the impact of the recent drought on the city’s trees. She stated that the street trees have received attention but there are many trees on private property and she wanted the City to help property owners protect these trees. A better tree canopy is critical to protect against climate change, especially the urban heat island effects. The Public Works Department will be working with a consultant on a Tree Master Plan, at the encouragement of the Council. A RFQ has been sent out and responses are due Oct 17, 2017. Councillor Devereux gave a presentation about the Cambridge Tree Protection Ordinance and ordinances from Wellesley, MA and Atlanta, GA regarding protections for trees on private property (ATTACHMENT C-1) and (ATTACHMENT C-2). Her goal with this presentation was to provide the Committee and staff with information on how other cities are protecting trees on private property. Elena Saporta submitted a list of tree facts and benefits (ATTACHMENT D).

The Cambridge Tree Protection Ordinance (ATTACHMENT E) was discussed in the presentation. Councillor Devereux explained that large project developments of 25,000 square feet require a tree survey to be submitted to the City Arborist and a tree protection plan must be prepared. Only trees 8 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH) are included, defined as “significant trees.” A mitigation plan must also be included for significant trees at large projects, which requires that trees removed are either replanted or that the corresponding cost be paid into the Tree Protection Fund. The role of the Public Planting Committee was highlighted. The committee is made up of volunteers and is an advisory committee. The Tree Task Force will be a different group and will help a consultant undertake a Tree Master Plan.

Councillor Devereux stated that the Wellesley Tree Protection Ordinance was passed in 201l. Trees with a diameter of 10 inches or greater at construction sites on private property are protected by this Ordinance. There would be exceptions to allow dangerous trees to be taken down due to public safety concerns. She spoke about the two options available to Wellesley residents who wish to cut down trees: they can either replant 50% of the caliper inches removed or pay a corresponding value into the Tree Fund. The ordinance also has a look-back provision of one year, which states that if construction begins that triggers the bylaw, trees removed in the previous year are counted in future calculations. The bylaw contains a $300 fine per day.

Councillor Devereux described the Atlanta, GA Tree Protection Ordinance. Trees with a diameter of 6 inches or more are protected, and all trees require a permit to be cut down. There are different types of permits with different requirements based on the reason a tree is being removed. Property owners can replant or repay based on a formula into the Tree Trust Fund. There is a $500 fine for the first offense and $1,000 fine for subsequent offenses.

The presentation (ATTACHMENT F) contained a summary of the three different of Ordinances from Cambridge, Wellesley, and Atlanta. Councillor Devereux wanted to use what other communities are doing as examples along with the experts gathered in the room to discuss an amendment to the Cambridge ordinance to protect trees on private property and to examine what hardships should be exempted.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that a study was done in 2009 by the University of Vermont and the report was published in 2011. He summarized the results of the study. He stated that 30% of land in the city is covered by the tree canopy and 21% of land is in the public way. He stated that 31% of the right of way was covered by the tree canopy. He added that 21% of trees are in single family occupancy dwellings and 40% of the trees are covered by condos and two-family dwellings. The maximum addition to the canopy possibly to be gained is only 4% by planting more trees in the public way. He stated that the Forestry Master Plan RFQ is ongoing. He stated that the condition of the urban forest will be evaluated as well as opportunities to expand it. He spoke about outreach to care for trees and establishing goals to increase the urban canopy.

Councillor Devereux spoke about working with private property owners since approximately 3/4 of the trees in Cambridge are on private property. Councillor Kelley noted that the example ordinances are essentially a buyout, and that Cambridge does not need the money from payment into a fund and that replacement trees are never the same size of what was removed. He commented that the specific effects of climate change are unknown and we don’t know what species of trees to be planting.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the cost to remove trees would serve as a disincentive from cutting down trees. Some trees are older and near the end of their life and the benefits of trees need to be reviewed over time. Councillor Kelley stated that he did not want it to be easy to replace trees as a substitute for cutting down.

Deputy City Manager Peterson gave a history of Cambridge’s tree ordinance. She chaired the committee that created the ordinance. It took two years and included members of the Public Planting Committee and the Health and Environment Committee. She stated that there were concerns not to impact small property owners and thus the discussion was geared to large projects of 25,000 square feet or more. The City does have the ability to landmark a tree and a tree on Massachusetts Avenue was landmarked. Councillor Devereux suggested doing a comparison on the existing tree canopy and the canopy from when the Ordinance was passed to see if the canopy has changed and how much has been paid into the fund. She recognized that the City can protect small property owners but that having 21% of trees on single-family properties is significant. All zoning has some restriction on property rights but provides for the public benefit.

Councillor Carlone stated that 25,000 square feet is too big and that threshold should be reviewed. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that 79% of parcels are not on a right of way.

Councillor Carlone asked if this includes streets. Commissioner O’Riordan responded in the negative. He noted that 31% of the city is covered by the tree canopy. Councillor Carlone stated that the city should replicate trees at affordable housing sites. He asked how the required repayment values are calculated. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that it is paid on a basis the cost of a tree plus 3-years watering and l year of pruning. Councillor Carlone stated that parks have open space to the sky and asked if the percentage is the same for coverage of parks. He stated that at areas prone to flooding such as Alewife, the trees help with water retention and he hopes natural and planned systems are included in planning for that area. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the vulnerability assessment found that Alewife is vulnerable to flooding and heat impacts. Open space is not going to assist the mitigation of flooding. Open space needs to be looked at for water quality.

Councillor Devereux opened public comment at 3:52pm.

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, stated that Mr. Bolduc from Community Development did a program on the heat island effect, which is the most severe climate change impact and the most effective way to combat it is to improve the tree canopy. Most of the tree canopy opportunities are on residential properties and are not included in the existing tree ordinance. This needs to work for the trees, he said. It is important to think about what the problem is. He showed a heat island map received from Mr. Bolduc. He spoke about trees along Cambridge Street and 6 trees at Vellucci Plaza, both which show that the trees nearest the heat island are smaller. Old trees grow more than small trees and are doing the majority of cooling. Trees are located along the corridors of the back of lots in the neighborhoods and work because they protect each other. Property owners understand the importance of trees. He encouraged the City Council to think along these lines. If you want to increase the tree canopy the City should maintain its tree canopy by example. He provided a handout (ATTACHMENT G).

Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, is interested in non-private properties. She stated that a significant number of trees are being taken down. Taking down the tree trumps the values of the trees and is seen through development. She noted that affordable housing projects are exempt from this and asked if those in affordable housing deserve less protection from heat island, indicating that they clearly did not. The urban heat island map along the river will change because of the trees. She stated that there is only one Houghton Beech tree in Cambridge. She commented that New York has been landmarking trees for a long time. She suggested educating people about trees. She stated that LEED is not the final word on sustainability. She stated that the zoning ordinance contains requirements for permeable open space in residential districts (ATTACHMENT H)

Stephen Nutter, Executive Director, Green Cambridge, stated that this is a core issue that Green Cambridge has worked on. The whole tree canopy needs to be looked at whether the tree is on private or public property. He spoke about the disparity in tree coverage in Area 4 and West Cambridge. More trees have been planted, which helps reduce health issues and crime. The age of the trees is important. He noted that the Memorial Drive trees are 125 years old and the Volpe site has trees that are 50 years old. He encouraged the City to protect as many trees as possible.

Laura Nash, West Cambridge, supported this effort. She spoke about the complexity of understanding the importance of trees, especially as climate change threatens us. She wanted a clarification of the trees existing now for diversity and density. She spoke about proactive planting of trees on private property.

Public comment closed 4:13pm.

Councillor Devereux stated that protections for trees should be expanded. She is interested in the tree landmarking process and said it would be helpful to have an explanation of what of trees may qualify for landmarking and why. Are there grant funds to help maintain the trees? She wanted more data about the amount of trees in different neighborhoods. There is a high demand to build affordable units and if trees stand in the way this is a tradeoff that we must consider. Should affordable projects be included in the requirements to ensure that tenants have similar access to the tree canopy to protect from climate change? This is a question that the Committee, and the Council, must discuss. She stated that gas leaks are a threat to the trees. The Golf Course has a lot of trees and she has never heard about planting more trees at that location. The rate of growth as a criterion to calculate the value of trees should be considered in the future.

Florrie Westcoat, Co-Chair of the Public Planting Committee, spoke about the ordinance preserving trees. She had images of trees being cut down and green space being paved and the street trees having no water from the yard (ATTACHMENT I). She stated that when abutters were shown pictures there was a landscaping plan and now it is completely paved. She stated there should be regulations requiring plantings and green space wherever possible. She stated that it is important to preserve and plant.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is a city-wide problem and the solution is city-wide, including private property. He suggested that anyone getting a building permit should be required to create permeable and green space.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is interesting, but it did not tell him anything he did not already know. If you want to focus on an ordinance it needs to be worked on. He did not favor buyouts.

Councillor Devereux suggested that having protections for trees could be a requirement for a building permit. She stated that she favored starting with an ordinance and looked for guidance and expertise to find the right balance in strengthening the existing ordinance and broadening the requirements.

Councillor Kelley asked what the next steps to move forward are. He does not know where the City is on the work of the tree well inventory and he would prefer that this be done and not stalled. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that for trees in the public way the City is planting trees and the tree wells are better-maintained. Trees are being watered more frequently. He recognized that there was a drought last year and stated that the care and maintenance of the trees planted has been more significant. Councillor Carlone stated that the trees planted on Massachusetts Avenue seem to be doing well and are hardier. Mr. Lefcourt noted that the structural soil and increased watering has created additional caliber growth. Councillor Carlone suggested the Public Planting Committee, Public Works Department and the City Arborist review the ordinance and come back to the City Council with suggestions and recommendations for improvement. Ms. Westcoat stated that this could be included in the scope of work for the tree task force.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that in order to come up with recommendations and options for a draft ordinance she wanted clear direction from the City Council on this. She spoke about tightening the landmarking and Special Permit processes. The tree replacement policy works well. She added that the City could look at the ordinance more broadly to come up with recommendations.

Councillor Devereux stated that it is necessary to require more trees to go through a review process so that they are not casually removed. Residents are aware of the value of trees. She wanted to outline requirements she would like to see and discuss with the staff and a small working group of Public Planting Committee members at their monthly meeting. She would welcome recommendations from this small committee and additional data from Commissioner O’Riordan regarding whether the canopy has increased or decreased.

Councillor Carlone stated that the City needs to go beyond tree protection and be more proactive. In the Zoning Ordinance, trees are only required when there is parking. He stated it makes sense to include these requirements in zoning. Councillor Devereux commented that a tree plan being required as part of a building permit is an option.

Councillor Kelley spoke about state law on trees. He is suggesting reviewing the laws and then discussing what can be done. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that with regard to public shade trees the City has some authority.

Councillor Devereux stated that this matter will stay in committee.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that there are certain things that can be required under zoning, but the state building code outlines what can be done. This ordinance could be applied to smaller projects but does not apply to building permits. Councillor Devereux suggested starting with the current ordinance and see what the opportunities are for improvement.

At this time Councillor Devereux submitted the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor, in conjunction with the urban forestry staff and representatives from the Public Planting Committee, to come back with information that would be beneficial to the City Council; said information being, but not limited to the diameter of protected trees, landmarking process, possibility of additional requirements in zoning and what is within the legal parameters to amend the Tree Protection Ordinance all with a view in mind to protect the City’s tree canopy.

The motion carried on a voice vote of three members.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that the research on the legal parameters could take a few months. The Public Works Department and the City Arborist could collect the requested information at the same time.

Councillor Kelley spoke about written case law and the authority the City Council has on cutting down trees overhanging private property. He did not want to be soft selling this matter. This is a complex issue.

City Solicitor Glowa explained that the Law Department works in conjunction with the other city departments. She stated that regarding this matter other departments would be consulted by the Law Department.

Councillor Carlone stated that the goal is to make the ordinance stronger.

The following e-mails was received and made part of the report:
Communication from Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street, regarding City trees being destroyed by wrapping during road construction (ATTACHMENT J).
Communication from David Davis, 140 Larch Road, Public Planting Committee member, regarding the need to protect certain trees on private lands (ATTACHMENT K).

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:00pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:39pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed zoning amendment on Beekeeping (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, Community Development Department (CDD); Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning, CDD; Daniel Wolf, Neighborhood Planner, CDD; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant Solicitor; Claude Jacob, Chief Public Health Officer, Cambridge Health Alliance; Dawn Alcott, Manager, Nutritional Services, Public Health Alliance; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street; Cara Zimmerman; Lisa Ravicz, 40 Pemberton Street; Sandra Frank, 221 Mt. Auburn Street; Jeff Barneson, 13 Valentine Street; Noah Wilson-Rich, 83 Albany Street, Boston; and Katherine Isbell.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing. He stated that at the conclusion of the hearing the committee will make a recommendation.

Jeff Roberts stated that Daniel Wolf, a Neighborhood Planner at Community Development Department, will discuss the urban agriculture efforts that have been underway on behalf of the City. He stated that he would address the specifics of the zoning proposal and he would give an update on the Planning Board. The Planning Board began their hearing on Oct 3, 2017. He introduced the City staff.

Daniel Wolf had a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that the urban agriculture is the practice of cultivating food in and around the City. He stated that the benefits of urban agriculture led the Food and Fitness Policy Council to form the urban agriculture task force. He stated that regarding health and wellbeing, urban agriculture can provide an outlet for people to be active and to directly participate in the production of fresh and healthy foods. This can be a part of community life with the learning and interaction.

He highlighted the important ecological work that bees play in pollination. The urban agriculture task force was charged to develop a set of urban agriculture policies for the City. He stated that the following goals were established: to allow select agriculture activities in Cambridge, to establish a clear permitted and enforcement process, to support best practices and operations and to encourage people to be good neighbors. He stated that the task force has met with a range of stakeholders. He explained the outreach and their partners. He stated that the task force focused on four key areas: beekeeping, hen-keeping, commercial farming and agriculture and farm stand sales. This comes together in a policy approach that includes Public Health Regulations and zoning and documentation that will provide guidance on best management as well as navigating the permit process. He stated that Mr. Roberts would go through the beekeeping proposal.

Mr. Roberts stated that there are different aspects to this policy. Today the discussion is on the zoning and how beekeeping would fit into the zoning ordinance. He explained that the Public Health Regulations are an important companion piece to this. The regulations are being prepared and will be discussed at another time. He focused on the zoning. He stated that the provisions in Article 4 deal with land use and how it is defined. Article 5 deals with how beekeeping will relate to different development standards that currently exist in the zoning ordinance. A new Article 23 is being proposed that would include beekeeping and in the future additional aspects of urban agriculture.

In terms of land use the proposed approach is beekeeping would be allowed as an accessory use citywide. This would be regarded in the zoning ordinance as an ancillary activity that occurs along with other principle uses such as residential home or a hotel, store and institutional land use. A broad range of principle land uses could be associated with this type of land use. The development standards provide provisions for buildings: how tall, setbacks and open space and whether new structures are counted in the dimensionally requirements. If beehives are within the constraints that are set forth and the limitations set would not count against height, set back or open space requirements.

He stated that key definitions have been included which were the focus of the urban agriculture task force. Any activities would need to comply with applicable laws and codes including regulations from the Public Health Department (PHD). He stated that a permit for beekeeping would be required by the PHD. As an accessory use it would be allowed generally as of right subject to the permitting process before it is allowed. The standards in the zoning deal with the scale of use and the location on the lot are the zoning aspects. No more then two bee hives would be allowed on a lot. He stated that there are provisions where it can be increased. He commented that there may be situations where hives may need to be added to accommodate the division of a bee colony or a homeless swam. He spoke about setting a volume limit of 20 cubic feet for a beehive and a height limit of six feet.

Apiaries could be located at grade or in an elevated location such as a roof or deck. On a lot they would have to be set back five feet from the property line. He stated that there is an exception if there is a solid fence which provides a barrier separating the hive from the property line. If an aviary is on an elevated surface it would have to be set back at least six feet from the edge. He stated that the Community Development Department is working in collaboration with the PHD. There were provisions discussed to control the flight pattern of bees. These will be moved into the Public Health Regulations.

He stated that the final provision in the zoning is for signage along the public right of way or adjacent uses where there may be concern with the presence of bees. He stated that notification is required for keeping bees. The Planning Board held their hearing on Oct 3, 2017 and the hearing was continued to understand the zoning and the Public Health Regulations relation to each other. He noted that there may be possible refinements needed for the zoning petition with the upcoming draft set of Public Health Regulations. The Planning Board was generally positive but it would be best to address zoning when the Public Health Regulations are completed.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked where we are on this and whether CDD recommend this stay in committee or move it forward. Mr. Roberts stated that the staff felt it is important to have the zoning rules and Public Health Regulations that will come into effect together as one comprehensive system. There may be refinements needed to the zoning. He stated that it may be advisable to keep the petition in committee so that when the Public Health Regulations are available the refinements could be made and together move forward. The refinements could be discussed by the Planning Board and then sent back to the City Council for consideration, prior to adoption. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would prefer to move this forward because this has been around for two years.

Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Jacob to come forward and discuss the Public Health Regulations and the schedule needed.

Mr. Jacob stated that Public Health Department has been working with the City staff on this matter. A public hearing was held in March and feedback was received. Draft regulations are being reviewed by the Law Department. He stated that the Public Health Department is planning to have a public hearing in November and will forward the document to the Public Health sub-committee. The DPH convenes in December and this is the time line to have the document ready. Councillor Carlone asked when does the Board meet in December. Mr. Jacob responded Thurs, Dec 7.

Councillor Devereux commented on how long this has taken. This seems to be dragging on. She was concerned with waiting until December to finalize this. Mr. Jacob stated that this process involves multiple stakeholders. He spoke about engagement in a fair hearing process. He stated that the PHD is working to ensure that the regulations are solid and dovetail with the zoning. Councillor Devereux stated that she appreciated the public process but why are we waiting for a meeting in November. The regulations are not ready so the hearing needed to be delayed. He stated that he will make sure that the document is available to the public. Councillor Devereux stated that people who have bees can do this without enforcement are being denied because if there is a complaint they cannot do this legally. She did not want people in a legal limbo.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is not the correct course and this should be wrapped up quickly.

Councillor Kelley announced that he had several amendments.

Councillor Carlone asked if the amendments could be made later. He stated that the concern is we are not where we thought we should be on this matter.

Councillor Cheung stated he is frustrated with the delay of getting an urban agriculture ordinance passed. He started that this was discussed four years ago. Somerville and Boston have ordinances on the books already and the City Council felt that there were very good examples to go on. He is frustrated with the pace. He spoke about the rationale for delays and he wants to move this forward and urged staff to be direct with the City Council. Every year that this is not moved a growing season is missed. He would support Councillor Kelley’s amendments.

Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about the timeframe of the City Council and the City and how they differ at times and are not in sync. He stated that the Dec 7, 2017 meeting with Public Health subcommittee and nothing will be forwarded for the Dec 11, 2017 City Council meeting and this leaves the City Council meeting of Dec 18, 2017 and then it is Christmas and the petition expires on Jan 3, 2018. The calendar does not work for the City Council to not get a report back until mid-December. He spoke about receiving more complaints against those who are beekeeping because it is not legal. The City has not followed through to make this legal and those with bees are at risk.

Councillor Devereux noted another delay is that there is a permit process and it is unknown how long this permitting process will take. The Public Health Department would need to set up the permit process, inspection process and this is more delay for establishing beehives for the Spring.

Councillor Carlone suggested approving what is before us in the Ordinance Committee and that it can later be modified to eliminate the lack of time. He asked if the PHD proposal could be dramatically different. Mr. Roberts stated that he did not think it would be dramatically different and any amendments could be made at any time prior to adoption.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 4:17pm.

Lisa Ravicz, 40 Pemberton Street, stated that she is a beekeeper, and she is mystified that this is a public health issue. She has been a beekeeper for four years and there has been no problem with her neighbor who is allegoric to bees. She invited the Public Health Department employees to see her beehive to see what is the public health issue. She stated that it is not a water polluting issue. If she consumes something that will be a health issue, and she puts feces on her tomatoes and the PHD does not inspect her tomatoes. She stated that honeybees are docile.

Jeff Barneson shared the previous speaker’s frustration. He thought beekeeping was a settled issue a long time ago. He is mystified why it is taking so long. A document is needed for a step by step process of establishing a bee hive, the notification process and distance from abutters. He asked will a City beekeeper be hired to inspect beehives, the inspection process and will there be fines. He also stated that the Public Health Department permit process needs to be established. He moved his bees to NH in lieu of facing a fine. He explained that bees needed to be ordered in the next few weeks for next year to establish hives.

Noah Wilson-Rich stated that he is an expert on urban beekeeping. He stated that Cambridge is on the right track. He spoke about limiting beehives to two should be amended. He stated that he is a cofounder of non-profit in Cambridge called Classroom Hives, shows that bees are doing best in Cambridge. Any type of delay or restriction to allow a beekeeping process in Cambridge is a negative health impact because bees as pollinators provide healthy nutritious food. He encouraged the City Council to make haste to adopt. He stated that he could be reached at noah@bestbees.com for the information about the science.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, stated that to solve the problem you need to correct the focus. He stated that referring to this issue as ancillary or public health is a legal issue. This should stop destroying the earth.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked if the proposed text is notification to abutters or permission from abutters. Mr. Jacob stated that this is language that is being discussed. Abutters need to be notified and there needs to be a hearing process. This needs to be amplified for the guidance document. He stated that the applicants need to at least notify the abutters. The discussion is whether this is a function of the Public Health Department or if it is the responsibility of the applicant. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would not support anything that abutters needed to sign off on. He will not vote for this if it is a regulation. He asked if there are any fees. Mr. Jacob stated that no fee structure has been determined at this time and will be in the final regulations. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he did not want the fees to be a discouragement.

Councillor Cheung stated that the Community Development Department has an informative role to the City Council regarding the best practices; but policy is made by the City Council. He would want bees in the table of uses - that one can have bees. The investment to set up bees is costly and takes a lot of time. He stated that the Public Health Department will issue regulations or an advisory to make people good neighbors. He stated that bees are important in the eco-system and the City Council wants to encourage this. He wanted to vote quickly on abutter notification or abutter approval; he did not want this slowed because of this.

Councillor Devereux stated that notice, but not approval, could be necessary. She used the example that cat owners are not required to notify their neighbors and she did not want this ordinance held up.

Councillor Carlone spoke about apiary being set back five feet unless a solid fence is provided, but there is no height set for the solid fence. He suggested adding a height, such as six feet. He spoke about those who are highly allergic to bee stings. What type of bee cause this reaction. Mr. Jacob stated that this is unknown. The regulations only allow honey bees and they are a docile species. He stated that he wanted to ensure that there is balance for abutters and applicants. He will bring experts forward to answer this question.

Councillor Toomey stated that two weeks ago a 48-year-old Foxboro man died after being stung by a bee. Mr. Jacobs stated it was yellow jacket and the death was from a heart attack and it was not caused by bee stings. Councillor Toomey stated that he wanted more specifics on this cause of death to get accurate information to the public.

At this time Councillor Carlone asked Councillor Kelley to give an overview of his amendments.

Councillor Kelley explained that queen bees can be bought on Amazon. He stated that Somerville’s Board of Health Regulations covers beekeeping and requires abutter notification. He wanted this to be broad and easy to have beehives.

Councillor Kelley now went through his amendments.

Amendment one.
In 23.42 entitled Number of Beehives in (a) by adding at the end thereof the following “unless permitted by the Planning Board”. City Solicitor Glowa suggested that this be changed to read: “unless permitted by the Public Health Department”.

The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Amendment two.
In 23.43 Apiary Placement in section (a) by adding two new sentences at the end thereof which reads as follows: “Upon written approval of an abutter the Public Health Department may waive the five-foot setback with no solid fence or wall.”

The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Amendment three.
In 23.43Apiary Placement in section (a) after the addition of a new sentence the following new sentence “Flyway barrier may extend into the five-foot setback.”

A discussion ensued about location of bees in the back or side yard and the installation of a fence. Mr. Roberts stated that they would be in the larger rear yards of homes, but this is not being restricted in the zoning proposal. He stated that this would be five feet from the property line which is the goal for other types of accessory structures unless there is a fence. He stated that it was suggested that the intent of the fence would be to provide a barrier so to prevent bees exiting a hive may be flying directly into a neighbor’s lot. He stated that other approaches could be reviewed that affect this. Councillor Carlone stated this is allowed in a side yard with a special permit. Councillor Kelley stated that he does not like fences and did not want to add language anywhere that encourages fences. Councillor Carlone stated that he saw the five feet as having a breathing space around it and having the ability to get to the beehive from any direction, if needed. Vice Mayor McGovern noted that bees fly up at a 45-degree angle; he asked if a fence does anything. Councillor Carlone commented that therefore the five-foot set back makes sense. Councillor Kelley did not what the fence to be a barrier to beekeeping.

The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Amendment four
In 23.44 Beehive and Apiary Size in (b) to add at the end thereof a new sentence that reads as follows:
“This height does not include any flyway barrier.”

The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Mr. Roberts stated that it is not the intent for the flyway barriers to be considered as part of the hives but it helps to clarify those provisions in zoning. He stated that the intent of the flyway barrier was to provide some protection from bees entering and exiting the hives that might be entering neighbors lots that would not want bees entering their lots.

Amendment five
In 23.46 Warning Signage in (a) by adding after the word “sign” the words “legible from the public way.”

The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Kelley suggested two other amendments, relating to share space and an effective date of the ordinance which he later withdrawn.

Vice Mayor McGovern did not want people held up due to inspections not being done.

Councillor Devereux stated that the zoning should be in effect. She suggested specific lot size for the number of beehives. She asked what happens if it is a condominium. Councillor Carlone responded that this would be incorporated into the condo bylaws. Councillor Cheung stated that small condos are more likely to get the approval of abutters. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the version of the ordinance that he submitted did contain the lot size but was not incorporated into this version of the ordinance. He stated that in the ordinance previously filed by him it had a lot size recommendation and why did this not make it into the present ordinance.

Councillor Carlone said if the lot is bigger than the setback should be bigger. Mr. Roberts stated that keeping the notion of what accessory beekeeping means to keep it simplified and manageable level to facilitate the permit process. He stated that Planning Board could look at this. The Planning Board did look at regulating the number of hives based on the size of the lot and that most activities would be taking place on residential lots are generally small they could accommodate two hives.

Councillor Carlone commented that based on the comments and the amendments offered by Councillor Kelley that the ordinance will need to be refined.

Councillor Cheung stated that he wanted to move this forward. Councillor Carlone stated that he wanted to move this forward correctly.

Councillor Devereux stated that the zoning states in compliance with PHD regulations. Councillor Carlone stated that the ordinance can be ordained subject to the PHD draft regulations. Mr. Roberts stated that the language about compliance with the Public Health Regulations is already in the ordinance. He expressed concerns with the ordinance being passed before the Public Health Regulations are completed. It becomes more difficult to do refinements. Councillor Carlone stated that this could passed to a second reading and wait until December for feedback for any modification and adopt the ordinance before term ends. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the majority of the City Council wants to move the ordinance forward with the Public Health regulations, but will be voted on with or without the regulations. Councillor Cheung preferred the PHD give the City Council the draft regulations now, ordain the ordinance and revisit in a year after feedback in the field.

Councillor Devereux stated that the zoning, if approved, does include the language in compliance with the Public Health regulations. If the zoning is approved and the Public Health regulations have not been promulgated then the zoning can still be approved and no one can keep bees until the Public Health Department does the permitting process. This should be passed to a second reading as amended and then pass it to be ordained.

Mr. Jacob stated that the public hearing by the Public Health Department will be held on Nov 9th at 4:30pm and it is the last comment period for the public.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the report:
Communication from Marie Brown, 27-29 Hutchinson Street, in support of the beekeeping ordinance (ATTACHMENT C).
Communication from Jay Schuur, 300 Walden Street, requesting the City to stop studying and expressed support for the beekeeping ordinance (ATTACHMENT D).
Communication from Pamela Winters, Orchard Street, in support of the beekeeping ordinance (ATTACHMENT E).

Vice Mayor McGovern moved that this be forward to the full City Council as amended with a favorable recommendation. The amended text is attached as (ATTACHMENT F).

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:21pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair